![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
maxomaiQuoting Politico:
I have my doubts that Biden actually has 60 votes, or that the calculus has changed that much since the first bill failed. The only major change, other than the declining support for new gun control measures, is Michael Bloomberg's willingness to buy elections. So, who could he buy in order to get them to switch their vote?
Here's the list of Democrats and Republicans who voted against Manchin-Toomey, the last gun control bill to be considered on the floor of the Senate. Harry Reid voted against the bill for procedural reasons, so that he could bring it up later if he managed to find the votes:
Republicans: Lamar Alexander (TN); Kelly Ayotte (NH); John Barrasso (WY); Roy Blunt (MO); John Boozman (AR); Richard M. Burr (NC); Saxby Chambliss (GA); Daniel Coats (IN); Tom Coburn (OK); Thad Cochran (MS); Bob Corker (TN); John Cornyn (TX); Michael Crapo (ID); Ted Cruz (TX); Michael B. Enzi (WY); Deb Fischer (NE); Jeff Flake (AZ); Lindsey Graham (SC); Chuck Grassley (IA); Orrin G. Hatch (UT); Dean Heller (NV); John Hoeven (ND); James M. Inhofe (OK); Johnny Isakson (GA); Mike Johanns (NE); Ron Johnson (WI); Mike Lee (UT); Mitch McConnell (KY); Jerry Moran (KS); Lisa Murkowski (AK); Rand Paul (KY); Rob Portman (OH); Jim Risch (ID); Pat Roberts (KS); Marco Rubio (FL); Tim Scott (SC); Jeff Sessions (AL); Richard Shelby (AL); John Thune (SD); David Vitter (LA); Roger Wicker (MS);
Democrats: Max Baucus (MT); Mark Begich (AK); Heidi Heitkamp (ND); Mark Pryor (AR); Harry Reid (NV).
So, let's suppose that Baucus, Begich, Heitkamp, Pryor and Reid all switch their votes. Reid will vote for it if he knows it will pass. Baucus can switch because he has nothing to lose - he's retiring. The other three - Begich, Heitkamp, and Pryor - could switch in exchange for Bloomberg's silent promise to fund their campaigns. The upside, other than money, is that Bloomberg wouldn't fund a primary challenger. The downside is that their Republican opponents would hammer them for their vote, and specifically invoke Mike Bloomberg's name to do it.
That leaves one Republican that Bloomberg has to buy, and that Republican has to meet two criteria: Bloomberg's money has to be able to save them from a primary challenge, and Bloomberg's money has to be a credible general election threat. Only Ayotte (NH) and Portman (OH) meet those criteria. Of those two, Ayotte is getting more heat.
That said, all of this is idle speculation. Nobody is going to switch their vote to help pass a universal background check bill unless Bloomberg's money is an unqualified benefit for their re-election, and nobody on the list of "no" votes meets that criterion. The reason for this is simple: the vote in the Senate is purely symbolic. Whatever gun control measure passes the Senate is dead on arrival in the Republican-controlled House, which is likely to stay in Republican hands until 2023.
In other words, it's actually pretty likely that Biden is just spinning tales to keep the base enthusiastic.
“I’ve had at least five senators call me and say, ‘Can’t we do something about this?’” Biden said. “The calculus has changed, and so we’re in an effort to try to work out how we can provide another opportunity for those who voted no to change their vote. We all know that’s the hardest thing in politics, to change your vote. That’s why we’ve got to get a rationale, another reason why this could be done by changing the specifics of the legislation.”
Biden hasn’t conveyed which senators he’s spoken with or how the background checks bill might be altered.
I have my doubts that Biden actually has 60 votes, or that the calculus has changed that much since the first bill failed. The only major change, other than the declining support for new gun control measures, is Michael Bloomberg's willingness to buy elections. So, who could he buy in order to get them to switch their vote?
Here's the list of Democrats and Republicans who voted against Manchin-Toomey, the last gun control bill to be considered on the floor of the Senate. Harry Reid voted against the bill for procedural reasons, so that he could bring it up later if he managed to find the votes:
Republicans: Lamar Alexander (TN); Kelly Ayotte (NH); John Barrasso (WY); Roy Blunt (MO); John Boozman (AR); Richard M. Burr (NC); Saxby Chambliss (GA); Daniel Coats (IN); Tom Coburn (OK); Thad Cochran (MS); Bob Corker (TN); John Cornyn (TX); Michael Crapo (ID); Ted Cruz (TX); Michael B. Enzi (WY); Deb Fischer (NE); Jeff Flake (AZ); Lindsey Graham (SC); Chuck Grassley (IA); Orrin G. Hatch (UT); Dean Heller (NV); John Hoeven (ND); James M. Inhofe (OK); Johnny Isakson (GA); Mike Johanns (NE); Ron Johnson (WI); Mike Lee (UT); Mitch McConnell (KY); Jerry Moran (KS); Lisa Murkowski (AK); Rand Paul (KY); Rob Portman (OH); Jim Risch (ID); Pat Roberts (KS); Marco Rubio (FL); Tim Scott (SC); Jeff Sessions (AL); Richard Shelby (AL); John Thune (SD); David Vitter (LA); Roger Wicker (MS);
Democrats: Max Baucus (MT); Mark Begich (AK); Heidi Heitkamp (ND); Mark Pryor (AR); Harry Reid (NV).
So, let's suppose that Baucus, Begich, Heitkamp, Pryor and Reid all switch their votes. Reid will vote for it if he knows it will pass. Baucus can switch because he has nothing to lose - he's retiring. The other three - Begich, Heitkamp, and Pryor - could switch in exchange for Bloomberg's silent promise to fund their campaigns. The upside, other than money, is that Bloomberg wouldn't fund a primary challenger. The downside is that their Republican opponents would hammer them for their vote, and specifically invoke Mike Bloomberg's name to do it.
That leaves one Republican that Bloomberg has to buy, and that Republican has to meet two criteria: Bloomberg's money has to be able to save them from a primary challenge, and Bloomberg's money has to be a credible general election threat. Only Ayotte (NH) and Portman (OH) meet those criteria. Of those two, Ayotte is getting more heat.
That said, all of this is idle speculation. Nobody is going to switch their vote to help pass a universal background check bill unless Bloomberg's money is an unqualified benefit for their re-election, and nobody on the list of "no" votes meets that criterion. The reason for this is simple: the vote in the Senate is purely symbolic. Whatever gun control measure passes the Senate is dead on arrival in the Republican-controlled House, which is likely to stay in Republican hands until 2023.
In other words, it's actually pretty likely that Biden is just spinning tales to keep the base enthusiastic.
